You are correct about 'recipient' not being a 'goal'. I'm afraid i read
your note too hastily and gave an example concerning inanaimate 'patient',
which is a common synonym also used for 'goal' in linguistics.

your main point, is significant in terms of language restrictions and
language typology:

>After over an hour of looking at passives of DIDWMI it seems that the idea
>of the RECIPEINT being the subject is unlikely since it is typically
encoded
>with a dative. Where am I going wrong here? I cannot seem to find a single
>case of a RECIPEINT which is a subject and so the further restriction of
it
>being not animate falls by the way.

You are not going wrong, that is what I suspect is the case.
Not finding a single case suggests that such a restriction was existing for
some dialects.
But the restriction of 'no recipient subjects' needs some people to look
further to see if perhaps Greek marginally allowed DOQHNAI 'I was given' or
'you were given' in the sense of 'given to'.